The Other Surge--Afghanistan - Political Forum

CHUQ · #1 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 05:38 AM

Nato military commanders are set to make a further request from member states for more troops and resources to fight the Taleban in Afghanistan.

The new Nato commander in Afghanistan, Gen Dan McNeill, will call for 2,000 extra troops to patrol the country's border with Pakistan.

Troop numbers under Nato command in Afghanistan have risen from 9,000 to more than 33,000 over nine months.

The forces expect a Taleban offensive in southern regions in the spring
\

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Extra troops plea for Afghanistan

Of course, this will not hit the US as hard as the Iraq thing did.

Brother Oz · #2 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 06:16 AM

Because the majority of those extra troops are not American. The Americans are doing anti-terror stuff in Afghanistan, but the real fighting against the Taleban is being done by the British, Canadians and one other country, I think Denmark, I can't remember. And obviously the Afghani forces, who do most of the dying.

CHUQ · #3 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 06:41 AM

Yeah, just wanted to post to show that someone else will have to cough up the cash for this increase.

george.d · #4 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 09:04 AM

In looking at Afghanistan, population of 30-million (actually larger than Iraq) with terrain (251,825 square miles) that defies conventional warfare techniques, one can't help but wonder how long it will take NATO to learn what the Russians took 10-years to discover.

NATO has 33,000 troops in-country (one per eight square miles), the Afghan army, civil police force and new government are corrupt beyond Western imagination while actually requesting a decrease in NATO air raids and house-to-house searches, the citizens have turned against occupation and opium production has reached record levels with NATO controlling under 10% of the country.

With US troop levels and resources stretched to capacity with the Iraq failure, what sane NATO member would shove yet more troops and resources into Afghanistan? The outgoing NATO commander clearly stated that any possibility of 'victory' in Afghanistan was dwindling on a daily basis last fall due to dissatisfaction of the citizenry with foreign occupation. So what happens? The new NATO commander in Afghanistan is a US General, who of course 'senses' victory in Afghanistan as being a definite possibility 'in the near future'.

Does the flow of BS and propaganda from current administration ever even slow down?

CHUQ · #5 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 04:37 AM

Short answer, NO! The Bs never stops just gets tweeked to suit the situation.

george.d · #6 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 10:18 AM

Gates is receiving a luke-warm reception to his request for additional NATO troops in Afghanistan at his first NATO meeting:

NATO Allies Question Afghan Troop Surge | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited

Germany was the first to point out that Russia was unsuccessful in controlling Afghanistan with 100,000 troops and a puppet government, almost three times current NATO forces in Afghanistan.

We've been in Afghanistan for five years with a continually deteriorating position, a ridiculous circumstance. Once again US administration refuses to admit a gross strategic error while continuing to waste men and resources on killing regular citizens in a country that doesn't want us there.

CHUQ · #7 (**permalink**) 02-10-2007, 05:16 AM

You would think that the circumstances Russia faced would have been considered, they could not do it. I guess when the decision is made nothing else matters. I mean Germany learned nothing from Napoleans failure in Russia I guess history shows that some learn nothing.

Brother Oz · #8 (**permalink**) 02-10-2007, 07:22 AM

Although it has to be said that the Afghans who were fighting the Russians were well supported by Britain and America. The Taleban today are not supported by any superpower, or even great power.

Public_Enemy · #9 (**permalink**) 02-10-2007, 08:59 AM

Well, it is very hard to beat enemies who are very well motivated because of for ex. having nothing to loose in this world and very ready to die.. besides technology, power etc.. you should be ready to die as much as your enemies for beating them..

CHUQ · #10 (**permalink**) 02-11-2007, 05:43 AM

Well said and that is one of the reasons the US failed in Vietnam, they did not foresee the commitment of the enemy and I see the same mistake or mis-step in Afghanistan.